Josh Hammer: Iran not rational actor, US goals unclear in 2026 war
Embed this grade
Unlock the full scoreboard
Letter grade, factuality, lean, and rationales — free with registration. No card required.
See grades free How grading works
Already have an account? Sign in. The full report below is free to read.
Disagree with this grade or political lean?
Flagging is open to every reader with a free account. Sign in or create one to dispute this report.
Topics in this report
Summary
The Fox News segment features host Mark Levin interviewing commentator Josh Hammer about the ongoing 2026 US-Israel war with Iran, now in its sixth month. Hammer argues the regime cannot be viewed as a rational actor like the Soviet Union during the Cold War because of its apocalyptic Twelver Shia ideology centered on hastening the return of the 12th Imam (Mahdi). He criticizes the lack of clearly articulated US goals since President Trump's Feb. 28 Mar-a-Lago briefing announcing Operation Epic Fury, noting shifting priorities between regime change, nuclear prevention, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Hammer agrees with isolationist critiques that the conflict has dragged on too long and calls for rapid, decisive action to achieve defined ends.
The discussion relies on Hammer's opinion as a Newsweek senior editor and podcast host, with no opposing guests or detailed independent sourcing shown. It references Trump's initial statements and the audience's presumed knowledge of Iran's ideology and the conflict's timeline, framing the war as a necessary but poorly managed response to an irrational threat.
Editorial Assessment
Hammer accurately notes the Feb. 28, 2026 start of major US-Israeli strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's retaliatory missile and drone campaigns, and the persistent disputes over the Strait of Hormuz that have caused repeated ceasefire breakdowns. His characterization of Iran's 'Twelver' eschatology and its influence on policy reflects real elements of IRGC rhetoric and some regime messaging, but overlooks documented cases of pragmatic restraint (e.g., nuclear negotiations, avoiding full-scale war with the US for decades) cited by scholars who argue the regime prioritizes survival over apocalypse. Viewers miss context on shifting US goals: initial emphasis on regime change and Iranian uprising has given way to focus on degrading missiles, navy, and nuclear sites, with multiple ceasefires and MOUs attempted. The segment's one-sided hawkish framing risks overstating inevitability of endless conflict while underplaying costs (thousands dead, massive US munitions expenditure, global oil disruptions) and the regime's continuity under new hardline leadership. Overall, it offers thoughtful conservative analysis but presents ideology as disqualifying rationality without sufficient counter-evidence.
Key Moments
Iran cannot be treated as a rational, calculating actor like the Soviet Union under MAD because of apocalyptic Islamist ideology seeking the 12th Imam and Shiite supremacy
Iran's Twelver Shia eschatology is real and influences some hardliners, but analysts document regime pragmatism, survival focus, and ambivalence toward active messianism; US policy has long treated it as deterrable to varying degrees.
Unclear what the US is trying to accomplish since Trump's first-day briefing from Mar-a-Lago on Feb. 28
Trump's initial remarks cited preventing nuclear weapons, regime change, and countering proxies; subsequent statements and actions shifted emphasis amid ceasefires, Hormuz crises, and partial leadership decapitation.
The conflict is dragging on too long and did not have to; clear goals and rapid achievement were possible and still are
War began with massive strikes killing Khamenei and degrading capabilities but led to prolonged Hormuz brinkmanship, multiple collapsed ceasefires, and resilient Iranian proxies; regime did not collapse despite initial hopes.
Heavy military attacks and negotiation efforts have not made Iran prepared to surrender
Despite leadership losses, nuclear site damage, and naval losses, Iran continued missile/drone responses, imposed Hormuz restrictions, and resumed hostilities after June MOU, showing no capitulation as of August 2026.
Notable Concerns
- Presents apocalyptic ideology as making rational deterrence impossible, a contested view with scholars documenting Iran's pragmatic cost-benefit calculations
- Criticizes lack of clear goals but omits specific shifts in Trump administration messaging from regime change to targeted degradation and Hormuz access
- No counter-perspective or data on Iran's actual behavior during the war, including responses to repeated US strikes and negotiation attempts
Sources Consulted
- Apocalyptic Politics: On the Rationality of Iranian Policy - Washington Institute
- Remarks on the U.S. Military Operations Against Iran - Miller Center
- Taking Stock of the War in Iran - Council on Foreign Relations
- What has the U.S. war with Iran accomplished? - NPR
- Has US achieved its war objectives in Iran? - BBC